The Meaning of Mary Magdalene

Reviews and more on my blog: Entering the Enchanted Castle

A better understanding and appreciation of the figure of Mary Magdalene can “help us quit being afraid of human intimacy and start learning how to handle it better,” claims Cynthia Bourgeault – and what is more needed in the world today, both secular and religious? Her challenging, some would say heretical thesis is that Mary Magdalene has been denied her true role in the Christian story, as not only an intimate disciple and apostle, but the human beloved of Jesus. Bourgeault's treatment of this hot topic is subtle, thoroughly researched and argued, leading to a complex understanding of the principle of kenosis, or sacrificial, self-giving love, which can exist equally in celibate and non-celibate forms, neither of which is superior to the other – but which is absolutely necessary to our continued human evolution, and central to the teaching and life of Jesus Christ.

Bourgeault is far from the simple-mindedness and ignorance of Da Vinci Code-style hype, which has only served to obscure and delegitimize an important area for modern spiritual questing. I'm not sure I agree with every one of her claims, but I do think she is on to something here. I certainly agree that we need a new frame of reference to permit “a genuine reconciliation of Christianity with human sexuality [that will] free both celibacy and conjugal love to be the transformative pathways that they truly are.” If this is not found, I can hardly see any way forward for Christianity, whose death knell has long been rung by our sex-obsessed secular society; but with these new perspectives, some unforeseen possibilities start to open up. Exciting.

One caveat – I am not sure enough caution is advised in regard to mixing sexual and spiritual transformation. Both are areas where human beings are extremely vulnerable to unscrupulous and unprincipled influences. Maybe traditional religious celibacy originates not so much from a fear of sexuality per se, but a fear of the damage that can be done to people through invading their vulnerable places – and that has to be taken seriously.

The writer Charles Williams, for example, whom Bourgeault cites as a model philospher of substitutional love, engaged in highly questionable behavior with young women who fell under his spiritual spell, having emotional (if not physical) affairs with them in which he released sexual energy through sadomasochistic behaviors like spanking. He was described in a recent biography as having an unhappy and unfulfilled life, not at all a good advertisement for the form of “love” that he practiced.

That said, I still think this is an important topic that needs to be opened up for investigation. But for all her research, perhaps Bourgeault still has some blind spots.